Liberals immune from US Law, Nancy Pelosi Violates Federal Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Master Blaster

Master Blaster

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
5,687
Location
Delaware home of tax free shopping
This was from the Washington Post:
I posted it because it has some relevence to gun control, in that the Democratic leadership feels free to ignore US law that forbids this kind of activity and makes it a federal crime. They pass ridiculous laws that gun owners will have to obey yet ignore laws they dont like with impunity.
What is worse is that the Washington post ran this one day and then killed it yet they ran the Scooter libby story over and over to embarrass the administration, interms of endangering US security this is much worse than what Libby did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402306.html
Pratfall in Damascus
Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy
Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A16


HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.



Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration -- rightly or wrongly -- has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker's freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That's true enough -- but those other congressmen didn't try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

This shows the same lack of understanding of the constitution, US law, and of the consequences of her actions, let alone the fact that she has no Judgement skills, which results in idiotic and ineffective gun control being passed.
The Liberals truely scare me, and it isnt just on gun control.
I am waiting to hear the mainstream media Criticise her for her Hubris and arrogance the way they do our commander and chief. This didnt even make it into our local Gannet propaganda sheet.
 
I'm suprised the Syrians didn't have her executed for showing her legs in Damascus.
 
I'm suprised the Syrians didn't have her executed for showing her legs in Damascus.
Click to expand...

They are going to do nothing but be nice and polite.

They know how to play the sleazy politics game, and they recognize a peer when they see one.

You can bet none of the video with her uncovered made it to Syrian media, this is only for US consumption.
 
This article is an editorial, and the author seems biased and partisan. I am not sticking up for Pelosi, she is a dirtbag. If she misrepresented Israel or lied, that is bad, but I don't see how it is treasonous. What law, exactly, does the author think she violated?
 
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/05...an-darrell-issa-currently-in-syria-for-talks/

Breaking: Republican Congressman Darrell Issa Currently In Syria For Talks
The AP reports that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) met with Syrian President Bashar Assad today in Damascus. And according to the article, Issa criticized the administration while on the visit:

Commenting on Bush’s criticism, California Republican Darrell Issa said the president had failed to promote the necessary dialogue to resolve disagreements between the U.S. and Syria.

“That’s an important message to realize: We have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies,” Issa told reporters after separate meetings with Assad and his foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem.

ThinkProgress contacted Issa’s press office for comment. A spokesman signaled Issa may defend the trip by claiming it was Pelosi — not him — who “broke the embargo” of meeting with Syrian officials.

UPDATE: More Issa criticism of the administration’s failed approach:

“President Bush, is the head of state, but he hasn’t encouraged dialogue. That’s an important message to realize: we have tensions, but we have two functioning embassies.”

UPDATE II: Issa is heading a 3-person delegation.

UPDATE III: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) explains that it’s okay for Republicans to visit Syria, just not Pelosi:

Boehner declined to criticize [fellow Republican Rep. David Hobson] for joining Pelosi, saying her stature gave the visit an imprimatur it didn’t deserve.

“It’s one thing for other members to go,” Boehner said, “but you have to ask yourself, ‘Why is Pelosi going?’ She’s going for one reason and that is to embarrass the president. She is the speaker of the House. She’s giving (the Syrian) government more credit than they deserve. They sponsor terrorism. They have not been at all helpful. I wish she wasn’t there.”

Hobson defended Pelosi, saying she “did not engage in any bashing of Bush in any meeting I was in and she did not in any meeting I was in bash the policies as it relates to Syria.”

UPDATE IV: Greg Sargent notes that Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) also rapped Bush over Syria.

UPDATE V: Asked about the Issa trip, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe says, “I think the administration’s position on members of Congress, Democrat or Republican, is very clear: We do not think it’s productive; we do not think it is useful; we do not think it is helpful.”
Click to expand...

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202433

Pitts in Syria before Pelosi
But county’s U.S. rep. draws less criticism

By Dave Pidgeon, Staff
Intelligencer Journal

Published: Apr 03, 2007 1:43 AM EST

LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa. - While U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's upcoming visit to Syria has caused the White House to bristle, a little-publicized rendezvous took place Sunday between Syria's president and Lancaster County's congressman.

And though Bush administration officials have been criticizing Pelosi, it's not clear what role the White House and the U.S. Department of State played when U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts and two other Republican congressmen met with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Pitts is a Chester County Republican who represents Lancaster County.

Gabe Neville, Pitts' chief of staff, said Monday the conference between Assad and the three Republicans was intended to be "low profile."

"It was done in cooperation with the administration," he said.

However, White House spokesman Alex Conant said Monday the Bush administration — as a blanket policy — "discourages all of (Congress') visits" to Syria, a country believed by the White House to sponsor terrorism.

The House Speaker's office criticized the Bush administration for focusing their criticisms — until Monday — on Pelosi, the top House Democrat, for leading a congressional delegation to meet with Assad later this week.

"There's a Republican trip going before her, and no one is criticizing that," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said. "So clearly the White House's motives here are in question."

Details about Pitts' trip to Syria, including when the White House learned of it and whether and how the Department of State was involved, were not available from Neville, who said, "I'll let (Pitts) answer that when he gets back."

Neville also declined to divulge Pitts' return date, citing security concerns.

The Republicans' conference with Assad was first reported by The Associated Press in a story about Pelosi. Pitts' office made no public announcements preceding the Damascus visit.

The Bush administration has accused Syria of supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah in their efforts against Israel, meddling in the affairs of nearby Lebanon and allowing foreign fighters to cross the Iraqi border to engage U.S. forces.

Administration critics from both political parties and the recent bipartisan Iraq Study Group have recommended open talks with Syria to resolve these issues.

Pelosi, in published reports, characterized her planned meeting with Assad as a "fact finding" mission through which her delegation can "hopefully build the confidence" between the United States and Syria.

Pelosi is leading a seven-member congressional delegation that includes six Democrats and one Republican through the Middle East with planned visits to Israel and Lebanon, as well as Syria.

Sunday, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "most Americans would not think that the leader of the Democratic Party should be meeting with the heads of a state sponsor of terror."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, who last week called Pelosi's planned meeting with Assad a "bad idea," told White House reporters Monday she did not talk about the trio of Republicans in Syria because she was asked specifically about Pelosi.

Visits by high-profile American officials, like one conducted years ago by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, do not deter Syria, Perino said.

"Syria uses these opportunities to flaunt photo opportunities around its country and around the region and around the world to say that they aren't isolated, that they don't need to change their behavior," she told reporters. "And it alleviates the pressure that we are trying to put on them to change their behavior."
Click to expand...


Careful when throwing rocks. Republicans went too. Should they be tried for treason as well? And what's so bad about dialogue? Sure, nutjob Pelosi would be my LAST choice for a diplomatic rendezvous with a regime we're having rocky relations with, but dialogue is usually a good thing.
 
Careful when throwing rocks. Republicans went too. Should they be tried for treason as well? And what's so bad about dialogue? Sure, nutjob Pelosi would be my LAST choice for a diplomatic rendezvous with a regime we're having rocky relations with, but dialogue is usually a good thing.
Click to expand...

Ok let me explain why her actions have been creating so much media attention. Trust me, it's not because she is a Democrat.


First, it is not uncommon for congressmen (or women) to go to other countries, and the whitehouse rarely denies Democrats permission to do so. Usually the whitehouse denies permission when they feel that person may screw things up and don't want the back-lash comming back on the President. Democrats just went to North Korea, and the Whitehouse gave them permission.... the reason why the Whitehouse denied Pelosi is because they saw exactly what she was doing.

She was overstepping her bounds, using authority, which historically and constitutionally has only been reserved for the President. What she was doing was brokering peace deals between countries. This isn't a case of going to a country to build relations with them, this is Pelosi going to country to country and trying to make diplomatic headway. The huge problem is she screwed up badly. She went to Israel, then went to Syria and spoke on behalf of Israel. Congressmen (or women) SIMPLY do not do this.

This is obviously political, sending the message that the president isn't in control (some truth to that). The problem is, she is overstepping her legal authority.... and she mis-represented Israel.





But, to be honest, I think she made herself look like an idiot more than anything. The Syria's know Israel position and what they will and will not do ..... their perception isn't going to change because of Pelosi. They are also well aware that this is all domestic politics, and that she can not make trade agreements (she would be impeached if she tried).

In the end, she looks like an idiot.....
 
I agree she made herself look like an idiot, and I disagree with what she said. I also think Pelosi is a dirtbag in general.

But I don't understand what laws they say she has broken, or why what she did was treasonous.
 
Lone Gunman, constitutionally the right to send ambassadors, broker trade deals, make statements on behalf of the US, etc are ALL done by the Secretary of the State. The Secretry of the State is created by the President to represent the President. In other words, the only person who can be the "Legal Spoke-Person of the USA" is the President of the USA.


Now obviously, the President cain't do everything so he has a cabinet, but that cabinet is still under his control. Congress can not legally step in and take presidential-powers because they feel like it.
 
There is no place in the original article cited that says Ms. Pelosi violated any laws, treasonous or otherwise. Foolish, yes, illegal, no.
 
The Constitution give the Executive Branch all authority to negotiate with foreign states/entities....aka Dept of State which is an Executive Cabinet position.

Furthermore look up the Logan Act.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > § 953 Prev | Next

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

As Speaker of the House CLEARLY Pelosi was not in a position of authority within the US Gov't to negotiate with a foreign state (Syria) nor was she in a position to speak for Isreal so she MUST have been speaking as a private citizen.....in that case she WAS in fact breaking the law.
 
If you been watching CNN and Fox, they are talking about if she committed treason.


What she did was stupid, defidentially against the norms, and she obviously acted out of her office.


Is it illegal? Well there is a law on the book that makes her actions some-what criminal, she will never be prosecuted (It wouldn't make sense to). While she was playing US-ambassador, its not like she actually tried to broke trade deals or make statements that committed the USA..... she simply put Israel in a bad spot (which is stupid, not illegal).


Yes, she went past her constitutional powers, but that isn't necessarly illegal.



Again, she thought she could make some diplomatic-breakthrew and make the President look bad, but it turned bad for her.
 
Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Griswold and Parker were Federalists who believed in strong executive power. But consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House--because it violates not just statutory law but constitutes a usurpation of the powers of a separate branch and a breach of the oath of office Ms. Pelosi took to support the Constitution.





The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate.

Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flaunt the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.

Mr. Turner was acting assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 1984-85 and is a former chairman of the ABA standing committee on law and national security. ABA=American Bar Association,
Click to expand...

Good enough for ya??

What were the repubs there for? If it was to negotiate on behlf or Israel or the US with a Terrorist Government, with out the authorization of the President or state department, they belong in jail as well, but something tells me that they were there to sell US farm goods??
 
Liberals immune from US Law, Nancy Pelosi Commits Treason Violates Federal Law
Click to expand...

While I'm no fan of Pelosi, unsupported claims like this do little to further our understanding of Middle Eastern politics.:rolleyes:
 
The only issue i have with this thread is that you called pelosi a liberal. She's not, she's a socialist, as is the democratic party as a whole. Libertarians are liberals... and used properly thats not an offensive term at all:p
 
If she was guilty of no crimes, and sedition comes to mind as a possible charge that could be investigated, then she certainly was guilty of, in my opinion, looking like a moron. She never ceased smiling, what appeared to me to be that stupid grin of the outright fool or village idiot. In addition, in a couple of pieces of news footage, she reached out and appeared to have touched foreign dignitaries (not a handshake, more like a pat of approval), probably not the thing for a woman to do in an Islamic nation if she wants any respect. She is, in my opinion, certainly a self satisfied person as seen in her constant and possibly in that grin that I think could possibly be indicative of mental disorder called liberalism.

All the best,
Glenn B
 
This is not treason.

Illegal yes, treason, no.

If the dems were smart they would fire her as speaker. But they are not so she will stay.

She made herself look bad by sticking her nose where it did not belong. This kind of thing also makes all Americans look bad.

Democrats love to do that at home so I guess she thought giving it a whirl overseas was a good idea.
 
I don't see how what she did could possibly be misconstrued as unconstitutional by anyone, except those driven only by partisan politics. I don't think she negotiated anything. From what I have read, all she did was say that Israel was ready to negotiate. This is incorrect, but saying that doesn't break a law, and certainly isn't the same as negotiating on behalf of the US government.

Pelosi is a loathesome person with whom I disagree on almost every major subject, including this one. I do not believe she represents any of the virtues of nation. But I don't see how what she did is illegal, unconstitutional, or treasonous. It was just stupid. It makes her look bad to make statements that aren't true. It is just another example of why she is a poor leader. However, I think it makes Republicans look bad to claim this was illegal or treasonous.
 
She is guilty of violating the Logan Act

She is guilty of violating the Logan Act.

The Logan Act came about in 1798. It was inspired by a political supporter of Thomas Jefferson named George Logan. He went off to Paris on his own authority to make plans for a treaty with France during a time of great tension and hostility between the U.S. and France.

The act says in part.


"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

No body has ever been charged under the act, but I think the time is well past due.
 
All she said was that Israel, another nation, was ready to negotiate. While this statement is false, I do not see how it can be construed as negotiating with them. She did not say the US was ready to negotiate, nor did she attempt to offer any terms for negotiations. I think it is a stretch to say a violation of the Logan Act occurs if all one does is say another nation is willing to negotiate.

If there is really grounds to bring criminal charges against her, then I hope the Republicans will do that and let the matter be handled fairly in a court of law. But I suspect there are no grounds to do this, and that the Republicans know that. So all they can do is accuse her of "treason" and make various accusations about her in the media in an attempt to malign her name publicly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
7K
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
R
  • Locked
Newt Gingrich: Nancy Pelosi House Leadership a 'Disaster'
Replies
23
Views
1K
rbernie
rbernie
W.E.G.
  • Locked
Contact your Representative - assault weapons ban
Replies
0
Views
388
W.E.G.
W.E.G.
2
  • Locked
Damascus has expedited the passage of volunteers wishing to join the Iraqis
Replies
4
Views
265
Dannyboy
D
3
  • Locked
Nancy Pelosi Throws COLD WATER on AWB Renewal
Replies
2
Views
775
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
Back
Top